A good way to start is just do what you can. Try to be more understanding to what the others are feeling. Be more open to other people ideas, even when it sound crazy. Take some time to consider the possibility you can't possibly know everything and its the same thing for them. So respect others...

wellI agree whith being open to new thing but making the world a better place is logicaly impossible so instead of working toward that try your best to become rich and powerful (politicaly) and then you can try so before thinking about how to make the world a better place think about how to become important

I hope you're not serious... Selfishness is why the world is not doing well. Humanity is richest and productive as never before, but we produce more than we need (and destroy so much unsold products), BUT some people still don't have enough to eat, drink, dress or have a house !
Ok, you have to live well, to think of yourself first, but don't try to have always more and more, always more than you need. We can all live on earth properly, we just need to work on making the world a better place.
What is the point of being rich, powerful, and important ? I am rich of friendship, experiences, I am powerful because wise, and I am important for the people I know, as much as they are important for me.

Interestingly - and seemingly on an entirely different subject - a recurring explanation in the media (or at least in my country) for the tendency to "not care" or respond indifferently for victims of terrorism in Middle-Eastern countries, as opposed to expressing outrage on the behalf of victims in European cities like Paris and Bruxelles, is the so-called Construal Level Theory.

This theory states that "the more distant an object is from the individual, the more abstract it will be thought of, while the closer the object is, the more concretely it will be thought of."[1] Theoretically, this psychological distance is supposed to be roughly typified by temporal, spatial, social and hypothetical properties.[2]

temporal distance (distance in time) -> "you're prone to care more about something if it's in the near future"

social distances (interpersonal distances, such as distance between two different groups or two dissimilar people) -> "you're prone to care more if the ones affected are more like you"

hypothetical distances (imagining that an event is likely or unlikely) -> "you're prone to care more if you actually expect it to happen"

What had bothered me until now about this explanation is that if applied inappropriately, it not only would reduce victims to objects, but also [in this case] suggests that there is 'naturally' supposed to be some social distance between (North-)Western Europe and the Middle East (when rather it is constructed by the same media who are trying to convince me of how normal this phenomenon is supposed to be).

However, now that I have read your entry on this topic, I can actually see a new use for this theory from now on. Thanks for restoring my faith in the social sciences.

I would think that if we keep on the current path of pollution and combustion the world would probably get so polluted the climate would change like in Paris. We would also have to conserve wildlife if we don't want to carry around oxygen tanks when all of the plants are dead.